Clinical outcomes of immunoglobulin use in solid organ transplant recipients: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Transplantation improves survival and the quality of life of patients with end-stage organ failure. Infection, due to surgical issues, host factors such as diabetes, immunosuppression, and hypogammaglobulinemia, is a major post-transplant complication. Clinical outcomes of prophylaxis or treatment of hypogammaglobulinemia in solid organ transplant recipients are not well established and are in need of further study. METHODS/DESIGN: We will conduct a systematic review of studies investigating clinically relevant outcomes of immunoglobulin use either as prophylaxis or treatment of hypogammaglobulinemia after solid organ transplantation. Both randomized and non-randomized studies (excluding case reports and case series of less than 20 subjects) will be included. Outcomes of interest will include the overall rate of infection, hospital admission, hospital length of stay, intensive care unit admission, 1-year all-cause mortality, incidence of acute organ rejection, allograft survival within 1 year, and adverse events. We will search MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Transplant library, and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for randomized and non-randomized studies on adult solid organ transplant patients who received prophylactic immunoglobulin or immunoglobulin treatment. Two reviewers will conduct all screening and data collection independently. We will assess study level of risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for randomized controlled trials and for non-randomized studies. If meta-analysis of outcome data is deemed appropriate, we will use random effects models to combine data for continuous and dichotomous measures. DISCUSSION: The results of this systematic review may inform guideline development for measuring immunoglobulin level and use of immunoglobulin in solid organ transplant patients and highlight areas for further research. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42015017620.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.023 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.056 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".